4 ms·

I think you’re partially right. However, it also depends on what you’re comparing to and what the baseline is. There are lots of projects that try to predict th

by cl42 6y ago

I think you’re partially right. However, it also depends on what you’re comparing to and what the baseline is. There are lots of projects that try to predict the future and using a framework to do so in a systematic way that can improve over time with feedback is really valuable. That part resonates with me. I do agree that keeping this high level and abstract (scenario planning + probabilistic estimates) isn’t necessarily doing them any favours. Their book on the topic is better, and I do appreciate their argument that it’s not about being a perfect predictor of the future, but simply better than what we have today.

trishankkarthik 6y ago
You cannot fundamentally predict the future, fuhgedaboutit, partly for the same reasons we cannot use Turing machines to solve the halting problem for Turing machines. What you can do, however, is control your exposure to outcomes of unpredictable events. You don't know when a pandemic will hit, but you know it is is matter of time, just like getting hacked. So prepare and design accordingly. Simple. No need for this superforecasting nonsense which doesn't even work.
- cl42 6y ago
  They would actually argue the same thing. Certain events are impossible to predict. Other events are not. That’s part of the beauty of the problem. You need to be able to pick the right events to predict and ensure the event is well-defined enough to actually test. Your own examples of why this wouldn’t work are exactly what they discuss as the problem... Eventually a lot of forecasts are correct; what governments, companies, and leaders need are forecasts that are time bound, as that’s how they plan.
  - trishankkarthik 6y ago
    Show me the money: did they warn about COVID-19 way BEFORE it be came a problem, or did they not? If not, why should we take them seriously? It is easy to prognosticate AFTER the fact.
    - _jahh 6y ago
      not seeing one crisis doesn't mean they aren't better than chance. Also do you know that they didn't make some accurate prediction of XX% of a pandemic that was born out in this situation? No one is claiming to have a literal crystal ball.
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      This argument relies on the nirvana fallacy. "You are not perfectly clairvoyant, therefore prediction is worthless". I recall, but cannot locate, that questions related to the outbreak of trans-species respiratory illnesses from China have been canvassed in the past. It does appear that the US intelligence community expected a pandemic to emerge: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/16/analysis-yes-people-did-foresee-this-pandemic-happening/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/16/analysis-yes-people-d...

by cl42 6y ago

trishankkarthik 6y ago

You cannot fundamentally predict the future, fuhgedaboutit, partly for the same reasons we cannot use Turing machines to solve the halting problem for Turing machines. What you can do, however, is control your exposure to outcomes of unpredictable events. You don't know when a pandemic will hit, but you know it is is matter of time, just like getting hacked. So prepare and design accordingly. Simple. No need for this superforecasting nonsense which doesn't even work.

cl42 6y ago
They would actually argue the same thing. Certain events are impossible to predict. Other events are not. That’s part of the beauty of the problem. You need to be able to pick the right events to predict and ensure the event is well-defined enough to actually test. Your own examples of why this wouldn’t work are exactly what they discuss as the problem... Eventually a lot of forecasts are correct; what governments, companies, and leaders need are forecasts that are time bound, as that’s how they plan.
- trishankkarthik 6y ago
  Show me the money: did they warn about COVID-19 way BEFORE it be came a problem, or did they not? If not, why should we take them seriously? It is easy to prognosticate AFTER the fact.
  - _jahh 6y ago
    not seeing one crisis doesn't mean they aren't better than chance. Also do you know that they didn't make some accurate prediction of XX% of a pandemic that was born out in this situation? No one is claiming to have a literal crystal ball.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    This argument relies on the nirvana fallacy. "You are not perfectly clairvoyant, therefore prediction is worthless". I recall, but cannot locate, that questions related to the outbreak of trans-species respiratory illnesses from China have been canvassed in the past. It does appear that the US intelligence community expected a pandemic to emerge: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/16/analysis-yes-people-did-foresee-this-pandemic-happening/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/16/analysis-yes-people-d...